New York Times

Worst of Times

The New York Times' political and economic coverage is filled with deceit.


Now that I no longer do a weekly TV show, I have more time to read my local paper. Sadly, that's The New York Times.

The Times actually does some good reporting, but their political and economic coverage is filled with deceit.

Can I find deceit every day? You bet. Take a look at a few days just last week.


The front page: "NAFTA's promise is falling short, Mexicans agree."

Wow, the Times now embraces Donald Trump's position on trade? Economists estimate that 14 million jobs depend upon NAFTA, but people everywhere often oppose trade because the smaller number of jobs lost is more visible than gradual gains.

What evidence of NAFTA's failings does the Times offer? Oddly, the article says "the workforce has grown."

Ah, hello? Job growth is good.

Jose Luis Rico "earns well under $10,000 a year."

Not much by American standards, but good for Latin America, and the reporter mentions that Rico got "a handful of raises." Have you gotten "a handful of raises"?

Despite NAFTA, the "gap between the nation's rich and poor persists."

Duh. Trade doesn't eliminate wealth gaps—it may increase the gap because the cleverest traders get rich. But since the poor gain jobs and wealth, too, so what?

Finally, the clueless Times reporter quotes a Mexican politician and crony capitalist complaining: "Government has not established policies to protect Mexican businesses."

But "protection" for some businesses is corporate welfare—welfare for the rich. It hurts poor people by raising prices. The Times wants that? Maybe they're sucking up to Donald Trump and his friend Carlos Slim, Mexico's richest crony capitalist, and the Times' biggest shareholder.


A front-page story smears David and Charles Koch (the former of whom is a trustee of Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes this website)

First, the reporter labels them "the ultraconservative billionaire brothers." Ultra? Why ultra? Why conservative even?

The Kochs favor liberal immigration rules, gay marriage, legal drugs, ending racial discrimination in criminal sentencing, fighting in fewer foreign wars and getting rid of government bailouts and favors for businesses, including their own. David Koch supports higher taxes to reduce the deficit. Which of those things is conservative?!

Maybe the Times calls the Kochs "ultraconservative" because a political group they support points out, "Policies that subsidize electric vehicles and solar panels for the wealthy raise energy prices" and gas and oil are cheaper for everyone. The reporter adds that the group even showed a "video of people driving, turning on lights and plugging in appliances." Oh, no! How terrible!

The reporter claims the "Kochs have long worked to quash… renewable energy sources like wind and solar." But they haven't! They try to quash subsidies for renewables. Big difference. Doesn't the Times know the difference?

The Times appeals to its Trump-hating readers with a headline that begins "Sensing Gains Ahead Under Trump, the Kochs …" But the Kochs didn't give Trump a penny.

It's time for the Times to stop calling all their opponents "conservatives." Some of us are libertarians. America has other choices besides the anti-capitalism of the Times and anti-capitalism of Trump.


The Times quotes left-wing New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) saying it "defies common sense" to have a nuclear power plant near New York City. Green activists oppose the plant and Cuomo now says it will close.

But where will New Yorkers get power? The "options include hydropower from Quebec and power from wind farms."

Great. But what will we do when the wind doesn't blow? At least the reporter admits that "New York City could be burdened with higher energy prices." Could be? Will be!


"Trump Denies Climate Change, These Kids Die."

That's the headline on a Nicholas Kristof column about drought in southern Africa. Apparently, there were no dry spells before "man-made global warming."

In truth, starvation has decreased dramatically thanks to fossil fuels. Starvation now is caused by corrupt governments, not climate change.

If there's a way to blame capitalism even as it improves the world, the Times will find it.


NEXT: In Farewell Address, Obama Condemns Outrage-Industrial Complex, Overlooks Failure to Constrain Feds

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So Drudge is now floating something of a conspiracy theory (really, Russia hacking our election is a conspiracy theory itself at this point) where the intelligence agencies fabricated the whole thing to delegitimize him. He includes this on his front page with another link to the NSA apparently 'losing' some sophisticated hacking tools which are now being auctioned off.

    1. Deductive reasoning leads to the same conclusion. The only surprising part is just how retarded the story is, and by implication those planting it and pushing it.

      1. "Deductive reasoning"?

    2. I am conviced Kim Dotcom was behind the hacks, not Russia. He has the motive, hates Democrats especially, has the resources, and is pals with Assange.

      1. I'd say the murder of Seth Richards shortly after the DNC email leaks (where his motive would be to shame the DNC into not favoring one Democrat in the primaries over another which is against their stated purpose), and where he had access to the emails, points to him as being the source for those emails.

  2. I still miss the Stossel Show. Thanks for being a voice of reason showing a silliness of the lefty media.

    1. Sadly his show was merely preaching to the choir. I can't imagine any conservative or liberal watching the show without throwing something at the tv.

      1. I saw an interview with Stossel once where he said that while liberals hated him, conservatives loved him because of free market economics and overlooked the rest. When push comes to shove people only care about money.

  3. Stossel appeals to the full spectrum of libertarians. And he breaks down the message into 'common sense'. God I miss that man

    1. He's the articulate voice that the LP needed, but didn't have.
      I'm glad he's still writing. Maybe he'll do more. We'll see.

      1. He's supposed to be working with ReasonTV now that he's left Fox.

        1. My prediction is that he picks up where Drew Carey left off with the Reason TV short episodes.

      2. Stossel 2020!

  4. Without corporate masters at Fox Biz, Stossel is off the leash.

  5. John, please try to limit the time you spend in a room with a copy of the New York Times. It can rot your brain from across the room.
    If you need a lead for a story, investigate the rumor they are actually going to change the motto to "All the news that fits, we print".

    1. Penn Jillette admitted he reads the NYT daily, and look what happened to him. He went vegan and voted for Hillary Clinton.

      1. The vegan part makes sense, unless you think imminent heart attacks are fine.

        Voting for Clinton - not so much.

    2. I disagree.

      An astute libertarian can read the NYT without rotting the brain, and doing so to expose its deceit serves the purpose of informing other readers who aren't so astute. As this article does, showing big deceit in just a few articles over a few days. And even tying protectionism to Carlos Slim, who owns more stock than anyone else. That should hopefully result in a few cancelled subscriptions they deserve.

  6. I don't allow the NYT cookies or javascript (NoScript FTW!) and only see what they print in cases like this where someone else quotes them, or if a news aggregator quotes them to lure me further. Every single story that gets quoted convinces me again and again that I made the right choice.

    I suppose they must do better at the kind of ultra-local reporting that doesn't matter to proggies, such as dog shows or something.

    1. Their dog show reporting always has a Trump reference or a SJW signal in it. "One humorous incident occurred when King's Consort of Lanham Farms accidentally defecated during the obedience trials. Onlookers were reminded of Donald Trump tweeting, though Consort is generally quite docile and well-behaved, according to her owners."

      1. Is that an actual quote?

    2. As someone who shows dogs, I can attest to the fact that their Westminster coverage sucks. You know how in Best in Show, they have the two commentators? One is very professional and knowledgeable. The NYTimes is the other guy.

      1. Are you Cookie!?

        1. No. I can sing on key.

  7. It's time for the Times to stop calling all their opponents "conservatives." Some of us are libertarians.

    Libertarians are ultra-conservatives! Duh! I mean, they support liberty and stuff! They want people to be able to live their lives without asking permission and obeying orders! We can't allow people to be free! People need to be controlled! Left to their own devices it will be chaos! Anarchy! Corporate feudalism! Hell on Earth!

    1. "The Kochs favor liberal immigration rules, gay marriage, legal drugs, ending racial discrimination in criminal sentencing, fighting in fewer foreign wars and getting rid of government bailouts and favors for businesses, including their own. David Koch supports higher taxes to reduce the deficit. Which of those things is conservative?!"

      The KKKochs are "conservative" because they do NOT favor the ever-metastasizing grown of Government Almighty! Plain and simple!

      1. You're racist if you don't believe blacks are superior to whites, you're sexist if you don't believe women are superior to men, you're homophobic if you don't love gays, you're Islamaphobic if you don't love Mohammedans, you're xenophobic if you don't love immigrants. Why would it surprise you that if you're not the most lefty of leftists you're a right-wing extremist? When even thinking of the possibility of not voting Democrat makes you literally worse than Hitler, it's not hard to guess that these people can look at a box of crayons and only see two colors - blue and not-blue.

    2. Because if we are left to be free, then we will be under the rule of some kind of Corporate Fascism! Which is WAY WORSE, because the word Corporate is in it!! I don't think words like that being next to words like Fascism is where we should be heading.

      I like words like Sharing, Free Stuff, and Murder State.

  8. Perhaps John Stossel is now free to become the Libertarian Party's candidate for president? Though I'm pretty certain a lot of Libertarians can find one or more stands he takes that aren't pure enough to satisfy those who believe every jot and tittle of the Platform has to be supported in every speech, soundbite, and tv interview.

    1. Does he know where Aleppo is or that we shouldn't be at war or otherwise getting our state on there? Can he name a world leader, living or dead, that he can even loosely portray as something other than a Nazi who drinks the blood of dead puppies?

      1. I'd be willing to bet that he does. He'd be one of the best candidates we've ever had. He knows how to talk to people and how to put the principles into plain, common sense language that everyone can understand. He's telegenic. He'd be hard to fluster and not prone to doing silly things on air. He made the transition from SJW (or what passed for them in his early days) to Libertarian himself and knows what motivated him to change and grow and question.

        1. I'd be willing to bet that he does. He'd be one of the best candidates we've ever had.

          I don't disagree. My point was that the bar is exceedingly low.

    2. Stossel / Rowe 2020


    3. He'd rather be happy, I think.

  9. There's a reason everybody knows the anticipated NYT headline "World To End Tomorrow: Women And Minorities Hardest Hit". Every silver lining has a cloud and it's the NYT's job to find it. Being an habitual contrarian makes you look smart and sophisticated and perceptive or something. It's just so common, so pedestrian and vulgar and low-brow, to go with the conventional wisdom.

    And the dirty little secret of the job is that it's really not that hard to find something negative about something positive once you develop the habit, you just have to keep in mind that for every person who wins the lottery there's a million who didn't. Every good thing that happens, just remember that it didn't happen to everybody equally and your story practically writes itself.

  10. Every time the NYT says Free Syrian Army it is a lie

    It is not free since many of its members don't believe in freedom

    It is only partly Syrian since there are many foreign fighters

    And the biggest lie of all is that its a Army which would require it to have a centralized command system and they can't even get the various members to stop fighting with each other.

    1. Names of things don't always accurately describe the thing.

      1. Then you should use different names, if your honest.

        1. Yes, more editorializing is what the NYT needs.

        2. Settle down Ayn.

        3. So what should we call the Holy Roman Empire?

      2. Cf., the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

  11. The New York Times looks like Fox News compared to the The Washington Post.

  12. The NY Times: the piper of record.

  13. If the NYT is your local paper, you might should consider moving.

  14. John Stossel may want to re-evaluate his comment about climate change. He says "Starvation has decreased dramatically thanks to fossil fuels. Starvation now is caused by corrupt governments, not climate change." But astrophysicist Laurence Krauss, in a television interview with PBS's Arizona Horizon, explains that we're pumping three times more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than plants and biomass can absorb and, while carbon dioxide does make plants grow faster, those plants are less efficient with producing nutrients. Studies have found that too high of carbon dioxide levels reduces photosynthesis. So in the future, we may have more malnutrition.

    1. Think about that for a minute...Are plants and biomass a static thing that aren't affected by their environment? Then why use fertilizers? Plants grow more when conditions for growth are favorable. If there is more CO2 and it assists with plant growth, then biomass will increase. That changes the uptake of overall CO2, no? I am NOT trying to dispute that there are effects of CO2 on the environment, just your idea that a system with biomass is some static thing that is not affected by the CO2 levels. Your hero astrophysicist may be very well educated, but I doubt he's solved the CO2 equation for the whole Earth yet.

  15. Your examples are good, but I just barely made it through 1/2 of Maureen Dowd's NYT interview with Peter Thiel. What a condescending, poorly written, prejudiced piece of trash (hence my half read). But this is a good thing. It continues to demonstrate that the left still has no clue as to why they lost the elections. Their rhetoric is unchanged. They think they just failed to adequately communicate their message. Not realizing that the last 8+ years was communication enough for their failed policies. They've been both communicated and demonstrated. And the citizens see it for the disaster that it is. Fortunately, the left doesn't. Yay! for the rest of us.

  16. Well done sir. Now that James Taranto has ceased his "Best of the Web" column to move onto other WSJ duties, I'm hoping that you will pick up the torch here and expose liberal bias in the NYT and other respected news sources.

    Miss your show!

    1. start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this ? 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail?


  17. Ella . although Margaret `s article is super, on friday I got a new McLaren F1 after having earned $4887 this-past/four weeks and just over ten grand last-month . this is actually my favourite-work Ive had . I actually started six months/ago and right away began to earn minimum $82 p/h
    . Read more on this site.....


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.